"...there is no compelling reason for going to a full-frame DSLR."

<p>The reason I posted this 'bottom line' from the pop photo article was really in response to the trolls who constantly come into the <b>Pentax forum</b> crying about Pentax screwing their customers because they aren't giving their customers an 'upgrade path' to a 'professional' FF DSLR. These trolls are whining about a problem that doesn't exist.</p>

<p>The remark about the EF-S lenses was really an afterthought that I added to my OP because I was curious how many of the trolls would come out of the woodwork to defend the bloody papacy known as Canon for its unusual commitment to its cropped sensors. Nobody is griping that 4/3rds needs to grow up and become 24mmx36mm, but for some reason the <b>Pentax forum</b> is littered with trolls that are convinced that the death of the APS-C sized sensor is "inevitable" so we as Pentax users have taken it in the shorts. </p>

<p>Of course, when the trolls in the <b>Pentax forum</b> start spewing their venom on the Pentax platform for their dedication to the cropped sensor, all of the same positives for the small sensor that are listed in the pop photo are mentioned, then the trolls start accusing the platform's defenders of being mindless slugs who carry an illogical loyalty to a brand name that they find no value in. </p>

<p>If you couldn't guess, I really did think this post would have found more value in the <b>Pentax forum</b>.</p>

 

<br />

<p>If you still can't figure it out - Matt & I pretty much feel what John O'Keefe-Odom stated so well in his post up there.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p >How about attachment to Pentax because I can pick up an entire medium format system for under $2K? How about using lenses older than I am on cameras that still work after 20 years? There's a lot of good in Pentax equipment. And, if they follow through on a digital 645, given the excellent performance and enviable ruggedness of the 1986 645, they'll do well.</p>

<p >The reality of our DSLR situation is, overall, we've got more than enough of what it takes to make a decent still picture in digital these days. We've seen decades of improvement in the technology, and it's good enough to make a decent photo. It's not like we're beset with lines across a monitor, or files so huge you need a network of computers to process one image, anymore. While I still favor film, technology-wise, I think we're fast approaching a point where we're well inside the minimum limit of what we would need to record a good image. If anything, the technology on hand is excessive.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The full backwards compatibility is only one of the reasons we hung onto film as long as we could, and put up with a gorgeous-glassed, but fully obnoxious other-wise digital camera (reasons why electronic viewfinders are a bad idea is another thread), until Pentax announced the K10D was coming.<br>

I love my Pentax, my K10D will be pried out of my cold, dead hands years from now. I find it silly & obnoxious for people to gasp & die in an orgasm of technophilia when there's an announcement of the next step for some other company.... when it's obvious they have no good reason for NEEDING the latest & greatest (full frame), they just "must have it" because they think it will somehow make their work so much better all the sudden.</p>

<p>The whole entire point of the thread: You're not taking full advantage of your APS-C sensor, so why, exactly are you just dying to buy FF? Keep your $$.</p>

<p>PS: the best line of the entire thread - </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Plus, a full-frame camera for when you really need it is pretty cheap. As long as you are comfortable using the old-fashioned floppy sensors that came on a roll in a little tin.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>YOU SAID IT</p>

<p>Seriously. I have a 10+ year old full size 4x4 pick-up. I hardly ever drive it fully loaded and never drive at full throttle. Must be no compelling reason to get a new truck. </p>

<p>Well, maybe the better mileage, better trailer towing and braking features, better seating arrangements, better ride. Nah, not compelling. </p>

<p>Since when is it anybody's business what camera I want or care to buy? What's next some dweeby cabinet level post? The Camera Czar determining corporate average pixel counts. Is there some kind of silicon wafer shortage?</p>

 

<p>Maria: :) </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>But to Nikon's credit, the have been consistent with their F-mount for fifty years, meaning even quite old lenses will mount on today's bodies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes the backward compatibility is super on Nikon. That's why all of my non-AI Nikkor lenses will mount on nearly <em>none</em> of the current lineup without serious surgery. That's why they won't work with metering on hardly any modern Nikons. I love my old Nikon lenses. I can mount and meter with <strong>all</strong> of them on the crop-body Canon EOS cameras, and <strong>most</strong> of them on my full-frame Canon EOS cameras.<br>

That's compatibility. Nearly all of camera companies have at one time or another abandoned their user base with new mounts. Nikon when they brought out the F, Pentax when they changed to the K mount, Praktica when they went to the B mount, Canon from FD to EOS, and so on.....</p>

<p>I am an enthusiastic emateur photographer. I like to document family events and memories of places that I visit. Among my top end cameras are a Nikon F4s, Leica M6, and a Nikon D200. But I don't like being a pack animal for photo gear when I am flying. <br>

My wife and I took a 7 day river cruise on the Danube this past November from Budapest to Passau, Germany. My wife carried a Canon Powershot A620 and I had a Canon A650IS. We were delighted to when we returned and got our copy of National Geographic Traveler, and on the cover was a photo of Chessky Krumlov, a place we visited.<br>

Here is the Nat Geog Traveler cover.</p><div></div>

<p>And here is a photo taken by my wife with here Canon Powershot A620.</p><div></div>

<p>My point is that a moderately priced camera will meet the needs of most amateurs.<br>

40 years ago, I worked in support of the NRO, the National Reconnaisence Office (Spy satellites). For this type of photography, astronomical costs might be justified. I wish I had just my Canon A650IS and could get back the $15,000 - 20,000 I spent on cameras I really didn't need.</p>

<p>For the 'recon' stuff, I put a DA* in front of Tech Pan. With grain that tight, who cares about a little cropping?</p>

<p>Kerry, it is a neat feeling when one of your photos shows up on a mag cover or a postcard. Whenever I see that, I tell my wife they stole my photo. :-)</p>

<p>Getting back to the OP, I finally read the entire article. Matt's quote is accurate but this applied to "most serious amateurs and many pros." Personally, I would substitute "<em>some</em>" for <em>many</em> pros.</p>

<p> However, they also said, "If you require extremely high-resolution images, make really big enlargements, or if you want great leeway in cropping deep into an image, you'll want a high-megapixel full frame DSLR," adding that current technology has a limit of 14-15MP for APS-C.</p>

<p>Surely full frame DSLR's are way less than 10% of the market, which is no immediate threat to crop sensors. Fact is, both have their place and should be here for a long time to come until technology changes the path.</p>

 

<p>I enjoy my high end cameras because they are marvelous devices. I may upgrade to a D300 when they come on the used market.<br>

The things I like about all four Powershots I have owned are 1) 4-AA batteries in them; use lithiums and you can shoot for months, 2) optical viewfinder, 3) flexible LCD. The things I don't like about them are 1) wide angle limited to 35 mm equiv, 2) no hot shoe for a real flash.<br>

But they are portable with a good zoom. I have never made a print larger than 12 x 18 inches. i have found that unless you crop a lot, a 5 meg image can make excellent prints of this size. Now, mind you, I don't try to count all the blades of grass while standing 1/2 inch away from photo.<br>

I use the LCDs as a viewfinder when I amshooting macro, otherwise I like the stability of having the camera braced against my forehead. I really like the fact that these are takeanywhere cameras. And when I compare their output to what I though were fairly good photos in the '60s, the digitals produce better imagery for the most part and are vastly more flexible.</p>

<p>You can generally pay more and get more quality. The FF dSLRs can ultimately, with skill, give better images than any of the crop format breed. But the danger is that advertising will convince you that you need more quality than you can use.<br>

I happen to think that with the images that we make to document our lives, content is more important than quality, and as Kerry says, a compact like a Powershot is there as far as quality is concerned, for screen views or pocket prints. The consumer dSLRs take it up another level with more flexibility as regards lenses and variable ISO, but unless you routinely print larger than 8x10, you don't get to see the increased quality.<br>

So yes, I see no compelling reason.</p>

<p>"as Kerry says, a compact like a Powershot is there as far as quality is concerned, for screen views or pocket prints."<br>

The last three Powershots I have owned, the 5 meg A95, the 7.2 meg A620 and the 12 meg A650IS were all capable of making very nice 12 by 18 inch prints. So was the 3 meg (extrapolated to 6 meg) Konica A602.<br>

Read some of the articles written for the NY Times by David Pogue on the "megapixel myth". The prosumer and professional DSLRs have a wider envelope of applicability in terms of ISO, lens focal length, and the ability to make billboard size prints, but as long as one is shooting within a common envelope of say, ISO 200 or less, focal length (equivalent) of 35-140 mm, and print size of one to two feet, the output of either sets of cameras is not worth the very large difference in cost to a pure amateur like me. Given nominal equipment, the eye and judgement of the photographer trumps quipment, IMHO. My wife hardly knows the difference between an f-stop and a door stop, but she consistently produces more pleasant photos than I do. I have graduate degrees in engineering and a better appreciation of the physics involved, but that doesn't help my phtotgraphic "eye". But I fugure that even a blind pig sometimes finds an acorn. They just have a lower batting average.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>even a blind pig sometimes finds an acorn</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow, I hadn't heard that in years. I love it!</p>

<p>Of course film is better than digital or is it the other way round?<br>

This maize beer is quite strong.</p>

 

<p>What the article forgot to really talk about (they did a little on te bottom of p.58) was the ISO and size of pixel benifits of FF. They didnt even put that on thier "Sensor-Size Scorecard."</p>

<p>With every issue of pop photo I read I become more and more dissapointed. There seem to be more ads in the back every time and less useful info. Today there was an HD cam article and a waste of an editorial with "Raising the Bar" the new resolution tests. I should shut up and just cancel my sub, but its so cheap its hardly worth trying to figure out how to stop getting it.</p>

<p>"EF-S lenses won't even mount on a FF body - way to screw your customers again, Canon!"</p>

<p>I think we discussed this a gazillion times on here, if you are thinking about moving up to FF don't invest in a bunch of EF lenses. I purchased exactly one EF lens for my Canon 30D(not that I have allot of lenses) and that's because that is the only lens that will allow you to have Real wide angle with smaller sensors.<br>

I could have opted for the 16-35mm, but it was out of my budget back then. I would not trade my FF canon 5D for anything except maybe the 5 Mark II. I like the resolution I get with this camera and it's not overkill like the 50D. I'm also getting used to the Clunck of the shutter instead of the Clack of my 30D. Now wheen I slap on my 24-70mm it's a 24-70mm.<br>

I don't have to pull out my calculator an do the math anymore. The 10-22mm stays mostly at home in my bag unless I know I'm going to be in real tight situations. The good thing about the smaller sensor of the 30D is that I could shoot long-distance, but IMHO I would not go over 800 ISO with that camera unless it was absolutely neccessary. I just rather use flash.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...there is no compelling reason for going to a full-frame DSLR."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I like the bright viewfinder of the D700 I have gotten to play with. Reminds me of the veiwfinder in my F100! Honestly, if I could afford FF, that would be enough for me to justify the purchase. Of course there are other bonuses, like better high iso performance, getting the actual focal length of your lenses, etc.</p>

<p>I guess I now have a reason to look forward to my Pop Photo. That's right... the mail does run slow in Montana.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of course film is better than digital or is it the other way round?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That kind of statement makes me cringe! (and what's with the p.net exclamation point police?) Better for what? I guess my answer would be 'both!'</p>

<blockquote>

<p>ISO and size of pixel benifits of FF</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which would be what exactly? Typically, high ISO performance is cited as an 'obvious' benefit, but many forget the smaller sensor gives more depth of field so I can leave my lens open one more stop than on FF. Where there other points on this subject you think pop photo should have made?</p>

<p>Is it really that hard to know that grabbing the 35mm prime will give you about the same FoV as yer old 50? To know that a short zoom is a short zoom and a long zoom is a long zoom? I was shooting 35mm SLRs for over 20 years before I went primarily digital. This whole "use a calculator" or "get my actual focal length" stuff seems like a weak excuse to me. Maybe that means I never had enough primes, but I did come from the old school 28-50-135 kit...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I personally think FF is a precious <em>option</em> in a camera system, because there area advantages. Whether I will move to FF eventually, is a less obvious thing. I use a D200 with a number of primes. My set of lenses turned ount in time to work very well with the small sensor, and no matter how hard I think of it, moving to a D700 (which I would love) would cost me a significant amount of extra money in lenses (first of all, something at the wide end to replace my 12-24 DX) and/or a serious rethinking of my shooting habits. Would the advantages that FF would have for me outweight the disadvantages (including bulkier lenses in this)? currently I don't think so. So I'm likely to look very carefully at the D400 when Nikon will release it, and if I like it, I might just stay with APS-C.<br>

The point is: what if Nikon introduces some new lenses that make my move to FF less difficult? I might want again to move up. So I will say it again: FF and APS-C have both strong points, and I'm happy that my brand of choice offers high end cameras on both formats, and hope they will continue.</p>

<p>L.</p>

<p>Remember the Half Frame Olympus Pen F of the 70's? A Half Frame 35mm is the same size as a 1.6 or 1.5 crop camera sensor. I don't seem to remember people complaining about the Half Frame lenses not being compatable with their Full Frame Olys.</p>

<p>Also, no one ever seemed to make much of an issue of DOF disadvantage or advantage of the Half Frame cameras, nor did they say the Half Frame Olympus gave an advantage when shooting telephotos during sporting or BIF shoots. More "Film Grain" per Duck so to speak.</p>

<p> </p>